S.A.S.C.
General Topics => Member Discussion (Private) => Topic started by: PedalFaster on July 30, 2018, 12:15:35 AM
-
Currently, in order to contend for our season-end points championship, you need to attend a minimum of two events at each venue: YYC and Fort Macleod.
I'm curious about if/how attendance at Fort Macleod events would change if the two-event requirement was waived.
I included an option for "I would attend more Fort Macleod events if the requirement was removed". If you're wondering why this might be the case -- if you're deadly serious about the season championship, and fewer people attended Fort Macleod events, it would follow that there would be some easy points on offer for anyone who continued to go to the events even though it was no longer required. ;D
-
I answered "fewer", but that comes with a proviso. I am sure that we will lose the YYC venue before too long, since the property is just too valuable to be left as a parking lot for rent. If/when that happens, we are back to Fort Macleod as being our only real remaining venue, so attendance there is needed to keep it "alive". Thus, I will go to Fort Macleod for that reason if no other.
Edit: After thinking about it a bit, changed my vote to "no change".
-
I would argue that a minimum number of events is required along with an an explanation to the city (that we have a local temporary venue we have to make of use while we have it) but inventing attendance certainly isn't required.
-
A few days ago I was thinking about our venues and the thought occurred to me that we have a good mix with these two venues.
At YYC we can have the big sweepers that we can't get (except for the apron/parking access turn) at FM. And then at FM we get much more grip (such that I used to run the same shock settings on my Penskes there that I ran at Lincoln!) and higher speeds so we are used to that. Also at FM we are able to have two full-sized track layouts at the same time like we did on Friday. The big disadvantage is the 70' width but it is not the end of the world.
As I mentioned to a few people, I think we are lucky to have these two venues. I like the mix. Having said that, I would continue to go down there even though it is a bit of trip for me especially (from the NW corner of Calgary it is a 2 hour trip one way for me).
We need Badlands to get built. :)
-
I've moved this topic to the Members Only section.
I would argue that a minimum number of events is required along with an an explanation to the city (that we have a local temporary venue we have to make of use while we have it) but inventing attendance certainly isn't required.
If we give up the current one weekend per month slot we have at FM I fear once YYC is gone we'd be hard pressed to get that back. The club still needs a certain amount of people to attend each of these the FM events just to break even (~23 people minimum at FM) and if we got rid of the '2 events at each venue' requirement we may have issues even hitting that number (look at the historical turnouts for some of the FM practice events for reference).
Please keep in mind that having access to FM is a privilege for our club, one that at times has been hard fought to keep.
-
I agree with you Tom. If there are no points at stake, all of a sudden there is a drastic drop in attendance.....about 60% of the Sunday attendance for FM on Saturdays if I recall the past from a few years ago when we had practice events on Saturdays. Mind you that also meant people had to stay overnight at FM and it took up 2 days out of a weekend. Some people work Saturdays and have family commitments etc. etc. Others I think are trying to make through the season on a single set of tires (like in the old days when one bought one set of tires and would make it through the entire season ... barely). So if there are no points available then these people will not attend.
Anyway, that's about all I know about the situation. Maybe people can clue us in on what other reasons there are for not going to FM events? I'm sure I'm missing some here.
-
Oh, and in LA they ran Saturday practices and limited the attendance to 60 people which guaranteed lots of runs. The "national types" were the usual attenders ... the ones who went to Nationals plus a few others who were always interested in seat time and getting better etc. The practices were always full from what I remember 10 years ago with a wait list.
El Toro and Fontana Green Lot were both large venues and you could run through the heats very quickly which meant you got a lot of runs on a Saturday ... 10ish typically (because we were always tinkering with the car ... mind you I remember one time I got over 25 runs (32 maybe?) but got tired of running or else I could have run even more!). I think it was 2 heats ... actually it might have been 3 heats (but less workers ... because normally we needed about 30 people to work a heat down there) ...
Normal events at that time were around 250 people.
Therefore the practices were about 1/4 of the size.
For me to travel across LA to Fontana or El Toro from Seal Beach was about an hour drive (100 km.) ... slightly less for El Toro (40 min?)... but I would stay overnight at Ontario near the airport using Priceline to get good rates on motels, share a room etc. such that it was not worth driving back and forth.
Anyway, a data point to consider here ...
-
You guys are talking about a slightly different question than the one I asked. :)
I agree that it's important that the club take measures to ensure that we continue to have access to the Fort Macleod lot in the future. I agree that Fort Macleod gives us useful practice on high-speed elements which aren't really feasible on the YYC lot. And I expect that, if we waived the requirement to attend Fort Macleod events, fewer people would go.
I would personally probably attend fewer Fort Macleod events if the requirement was waived, as they're long days, and the weather is often punishing. I'm not arguing (at this time) that we should waive the requirement, though. Instead, I figured I'd post this poll to see how much waiving the requirement would reduce attendance. We can't really have an informed decision about Fort Macleod without knowing this.
It's possible that there would be enough attendance to continue breaking even on Fort Macleod events if the requirement was waived. There are some people from Lethbridge and southern Alberta for whom Fort Macleod is the most convenient site, some people like the venue on its own merits, and some people just want all the seat time they can get. :) If we're able to continue breaking even on Fort Macleod events without the requirement, I'd argue that we should waive the requirement, so that the people who most enjoy and/or benefit from the events the most would fund the site's lifeline, instead of forcing people who might not otherwise go to do so. Right now the poll results suggest that we'd still have enough attendance even if the requirement was waived.
If waiving the requirement meant that there wasn't enough attendance to continue breaking even on Fort Macleod events, I figure there would be two options. The first option, which has been the default up until now, would be to keep the championship requirement. The second option, which I don't know has been discussed, would be to waive the requirement anyway, accept that some Fort Macleod events would be run at a loss, but continue to run them anyway as a strategic investment. I think that option's worth considering.
One last thing: I posted this in the SASC Events forum, but someone moved it to the private Member Discussion forum. I understand that this is a sensitive topic, and thus that there's some motivation to keep the discussion quiet. Having said that, keep in mind that having it in a private forum means that casual attendees won't have a chance to weigh in, so the poll results will be skewed.
-
I find it interesting that we seem aware that there are many reasons people would have to NOT go to FM but still feel it's ok to marginalize the club championship by making it a requirement to incur more costs and more time to do an event. For those that don't feel its miserable, that's totally fine...they'll go without the championship requirement.
I am curious though the reasoning behind the fear the venue would be lost if we weren't there once a month. If they don't like us, having a break or cutting back the events would be a good thing. If they do like us, having us back shouldn't be an issue. Further, even if we feel we need to book the events, the city doesn't care who shows up...less people less noise. Making money at every event is not a requirement. The SASC profits have to be spent on something and subsidizing events to keep a venue is a valid cost. How much $ is in the bank at this time?
Anyway, that's about all I know about the situation. Maybe people can clue us in on what other reasons there are for not going to FM events? I'm sure I'm missing some here.
I woke up on Saturday at 5:45am and got home at 5:30pm for three autocross runs. Work assignment lasted nearly 2 hours in the hot sun and I didn't get to eat lunch until 2:30pm. You can think what you will of all this but I am totally cured from wanting to attend FM events unless it's the ONLY option :)
And to be clear, I didn't go because of champ points I went of my own free will. I just feel sorry for those that care about the championship and feel like they are being 'FORCED' to attend.
-
I agree that the last few Ft Macleod events have not run as smooth as they used too. That's an operational matter that needs to be improved. If we could get back to 10am starts, 12pm lunch breaks, and 4pm clean up it would make it a lot less grueling to head down there.
I voted that I would still attend the same number, currently ~1 event/month. The higher speed elements are fun, but for me, more than once a month becomes a drag. Mostly because it's a long commute and long day compared to YYC (which has spoiled us). It wasn't so bad when compared to Westerner, Deerfoot Mall, or Grey Eagle.
I also agree that the club should keep a presence and rapport with the Ft MacLeod council to make sure the venue is available for when YYC inevitably disappears. The venue may not be made available in the future if the rental income drops and no one is making an effort to message the right things to council. If it's only rented by other clubs, the SASC loses any control over the messaging, when year-after-year, it seems there are a handful of locals who oppose renting it out.
I think it's completely reasonable to keep the requirement of a minimum 2 events at each venue. If you care about a club championship, then you should care enough to make it to both of the club's current venues. I don't think the club should plan to operate anything at a loss, and championship points has proven in the past to keep the farther events viable.
-
If we could get back to 10am starts, 12pm lunch breaks, and 4pm clean up it would make it a lot less grueling to head down there.
Asking as a relative newcomer to the region: what's changed that's making our events run longer than they used to?
-
I'm sure others who have been with the club longer could chime in, but from what I've noticed it's:
More attendance with the same length (long) courses. Run groups used to be ~15 drivers, 30-35 total at the event
Used to be more strict about driver's meeting start at 9:30 sharp, ending at 9:45 to get heat 1 gridded by 10:00
-
If we could get back to 10am starts, 12pm lunch breaks, and 4pm clean up it would make it a lot less grueling to head down there.
Asking as a relative newcomer to the region: what's changed that's making our events run longer than they used to?
When we first started using FM (fall 2010), we would barely break 20 entries ... if that. I'd say 15-20 were the smallest ones and the biggest ones were less than 30. Now we are pushing 60. I think we had one at FM last year that was something like 62 entries.
-
If we could get back to 10am starts, 12pm lunch breaks, and 4pm clean up it would make it a lot less grueling to head down there.
Asking as a relative newcomer to the region: what's changed that's making our events run longer than they used to?
When we first started using FM (fall 2010), we would barely break 20 entries ... if that. I'd say 15-20 were the smallest ones and the biggest ones were less than 30. Now we are pushing 60. I think we had one at FM last year that was something like 62 entries.
BTW, I have already designed purposely shorter courses on a couple of ocassions when we knew there were more people attending but I have to say I felt like there was a definite compromise in course design ... shorter course = more simple = less elements = less interesting. But it was significantly less time to set up and tear down (duh? hahaha). In fact, I did not even bring over as many cones from storage.
But the events did run more quickly (obviously). :)
-
I voted that I would no longer attend Fort Macleod events if the requirement was removed, my reasons are aligned with those already listed in this thread. On a subjective basis, I've never enjoyed a race day out there but that's just my personal experience.
If we are truly of the mind that we will lose the YYC venue, then should we not try to maximize events there while we can? Is there anything besides our plans that prevent us from booking the venue more often? What prevents us from hosting YYC every other weekend during the season?
One thing to consider would be the potential to further entice the YYC-only crowd (those that already never go to Fort Macleod, and maybe only come to Calgary a handful of times each season). Knowing that they could qualify for the season's championship by only competing in Calgary might push local attendance higher. Those that only come 3-5 times a year, may push to reach the minimum 7 events if the championship is on the table.
-
Actually you know something else we could do (that they did in San Diego and LA), is separate the groups into two days within the day.
e.g. 1/2 of the entries would run only in the morning and the other 1/2 would run only in the afternoon. This would shorten the day for everyone.
There are some issues here ... It is an advantage to run on a cleaner track in the afternoon. Weather can play a factor with rain etc. Some people want to run all day (LA/SD used to do X-runs ... e.g. you paid for two entrie.
Potentially we could do this at YYC also ... It is nice to have shorter days.
Something to consider.
-
This past Saturday may have been a bit better had we not run into those timing issues/reruns too. We learned (maybe had to re-learn) that the right side USB port is not reliable, receiver line of sight, etc. Still not enough to have a normal lunch break and finish though.
Taking a quick look at the 2016-2017 event results, generally when there's more than ~40 entrants Ft. Macleod has ended up with a late lunch and late finish, regardless of start time.
I agree with Reijo that we should consider shortening the overall course times to match the number of entrants at Ft Macleod. The apron offers around 20-25 second overlap, but historically it's been used to extend the course length rather than maximize the number of runs. I know it used to be a selling feature of Ft. Macleod that the course length and speeds were more similar to national level courses, but maybe we need to take a closer look at managing the event schedule for up to 60 drivers. If fewer show up we can always get more runs in. Quicker setup/tear down. Win-win.
We could also look at running 3 runs groups with no break if we are at 60 entrants, but that gets tricky to maintain a 5min gap, classing, etc.
-
I voted that I would no longer attend Fort Macleod events if the requirement was removed, my reasons are aligned with those already listed in this thread. On a subjective basis, I've never enjoyed a race day out there but that's just my personal experience.
If we are truly of the mind that we will lose the YYC venue, then should we not try to maximize events there while we can? Is there anything besides our plans that prevent us from booking the venue more often? What prevents us from hosting YYC every other weekend during the season?
One thing to consider would be the potential to further entice the YYC-only crowd (those that already never go to Fort Macleod, and maybe only come to Calgary a handful of times each season). Knowing that they could qualify for the season's championship by only competing in Calgary might push local attendance higher. Those that only come 3-5 times a year, may push to reach the minimum 7 events if the championship is on the table.
One thing that was noted in the meetings when this year's schedule was being planned, we seemed to have saturated the YYC-only demand with too many events in late 2016 and through 2017. The attendance seemed to spread out between the events rather than stay steady or increase. I think that may have contributed to this past Saturday's good turnout, there was pent up demand for an event, regardless of venue.
-
You guys are talking about a slightly different question than the one I asked. :)
I agree that it's important that the club take measures to ensure that we continue to have access to the Fort Macleod lot in the future. I agree that Fort Macleod gives us useful practice on high-speed elements which aren't really feasible on the YYC lot. And I expect that, if we waived the requirement to attend Fort Macleod events, fewer people would go.
I would personally probably attend fewer Fort Macleod events if the requirement was waived, as they're long days, and the weather is often punishing. I'm not arguing (at this time) that we should waive the requirement, though. Instead, I figured I'd post this poll to see how much waiving the requirement would reduce attendance. We can't really have an informed decision about Fort Macleod without knowing this.
It's possible that there would be enough attendance to continue breaking even on Fort Macleod events if the requirement was waived. There are some people from Lethbridge and southern Alberta for whom Fort Macleod is the most convenient site, some people like the venue on its own merits, and some people just want all the seat time they can get. :) If we're able to continue breaking even on Fort Macleod events without the requirement, I'd argue that we should waive the requirement, so that the people who most enjoy and/or benefit from the events the most would fund the site's lifeline, instead of forcing people who might not otherwise go to do so. Right now the poll results suggest that we'd still have enough attendance even if the requirement was waived.
If waiving the requirement meant that there wasn't enough attendance to continue breaking even on Fort Macleod events, I figure there would be two options. The first option, which has been the default up until now, would be to keep the championship requirement. The second option, which I don't know has been discussed, would be to waive the requirement anyway, accept that some Fort Macleod events would be run at a loss, but continue to run them anyway as a strategic investment. I think that option's worth considering.
One last thing: I posted this in the SASC Events forum, but someone moved it to the private Member Discussion forum. I understand that this is a sensitive topic, and thus that there's some motivation to keep the discussion quiet. Having said that, keep in mind that having it in a private forum means that casual attendees won't have a chance to weigh in, so the poll results will be skewed.
What the polls show vs. what would actually happen are two different things, however we could take a vote on this at the AGM to see what the majority of members would like to do in terms of events at FM.
With the loss of Ghost Lake as a winter driver training venue our revenue has decreased substantially, we currently have a healthy reserve but expenses keep growing and the club does have some short-medium term ideas for equipment we'd like to acquire (trailer, announcing equipment, pro-solo equipment etc.). It's getting harder to keep things in the black and having to knowingly run events at a loss wouldn't help that.
I find it interesting that we seem aware that there are many reasons people would have to NOT go to FM but still feel it's ok to marginalize the club championship by making it a requirement to incur more costs and more time to do an event. For those that don't feel its miserable, that's totally fine...they'll go without the championship requirement.
I am curious though the reasoning behind the fear the venue would be lost if we weren't there once a month. If they don't like us, having a break or cutting back the events would be a good thing. If they do like us, having us back shouldn't be an issue. Further, even if we feel we need to book the events, the city doesn't care who shows up...less people less noise. Making money at every event is not a requirement. The SASC profits have to be spent on something and subsidizing events to keep a venue is a valid cost. How much $ is in the bank at this time?
We feel that asking people that want to participate in the championship to make the trek down to FM twice between April - October isn't that big of a stretch. The venue isn't ideal, we can't have much overlap and yes it's often windy but 3 years ago it was the best thing we had and chances are that in 1-2 years it will again be the best thing we have.
I don't believe that we'd lose the venue, I believe that if we went down to say one weekend every two months we'd be hard pressed to get back to one weekend per month let alone the two weekends per month we will almost certainly need again in a year or two. We've put in a ton of work over the last few years to try to work with the town of FM to become better users of the site (sound policy, port-a-potties, appreciation day, etc.), we've worked to make it clear to the town that we are respectful of their concerns and we can be good tenants, my fear is that if we come across as having a sort of cavalier we don't really need your venue now but will again in a year or two attitude I don't think it will bode well when we inevitably ask for more dates.
-
I voted that I would no longer attend Fort Macleod events if the requirement was removed, my reasons are aligned with those already listed in this thread. On a subjective basis, I've never enjoyed a race day out there but that's just my personal experience.
If we are truly of the mind that we will lose the YYC venue, then should we not try to maximize events there while we can? Is there anything besides our plans that prevent us from booking the venue more often? What prevents us from hosting YYC every other weekend during the season?
One thing to consider would be the potential to further entice the YYC-only crowd (those that already never go to Fort Macleod, and maybe only come to Calgary a handful of times each season). Knowing that they could qualify for the season's championship by only competing in Calgary might push local attendance higher. Those that only come 3-5 times a year, may push to reach the minimum 7 events if the championship is on the table.
One thing that was noted in the meetings when this year's schedule was being planned, we seemed to have saturated the YYC-only demand with too many events in late 2016 and through 2017. The attendance seemed to spread out between the events rather than stay steady or increase. I think that may have contributed to this past Saturday's good turnout, there was pent up demand for an event, regardless of venue.
Good point Richard, and I'll add that the break-even costs for YYC are substantially higher than they are for FM (think 55 people plus).
-
I voted that I would no longer attend Fort Macleod events if the requirement was removed, my reasons are aligned with those already listed in this thread. On a subjective basis, I've never enjoyed a race day out there but that's just my personal experience.
If we are truly of the mind that we will lose the YYC venue, then should we not try to maximize events there while we can? Is there anything besides our plans that prevent us from booking the venue more often? What prevents us from hosting YYC every other weekend during the season?
I am curious why you have not enjoyed ANY of the FM events. I have not heard that kind of comment before. You can PM me if you like if you don't want to discuss here. I'm curious to know why.
This year we booked 16 events at YYC vs. 12 or so last year exactly for the reasons you mentioned.
Something else I have been mulling about recently is having practice events on Tues./Wed. (usually the best evening for most people) evenings at YYC so people can get more seat time. These would be open to anyone. The evening rental rate makes it more palatable ($500 vs. $1500) and viable with less people.
There also seems to be more demand for another RASE school so I'm thinking about that also....fyi.
Note that evenings are getting shorter with daylight ... although there are lights in the lot....so this may not work later in the year.
Reijo
-
Out-of-the-box idea for maintaining Fort Macleod event counts -- have we talked with the LSCC about co-sanctioning more events? If we bring funding and equipment, and they bring some attendees who might not otherwise attend, perhaps we could maintain the same number of events and similar levels of participation without making the events mandatory for the SASC championship.
-
I am curious why you have not enjoyed ANY of the FM events. I have not heard that kind of comment before. You can PM me if you like if you don't want to discuss here. I'm curious to know why.
The risk reward element of the long drives down for potential few runs, marginal weather (both wind and rain) seem worse at FM than at YYC.
I personally feel YYC is a safer venue, as we usually have ample run off room compared to FM where going off the tarmac can lead to more car damage (I've taken both my cars off the pavement at FM now).
Highway driving, while usually okay, also poses potential consequences (took a chunk of asphalt to my hood this season on the way down to FM).
Bring out the tissues for this one, but, I also feel like I've never had a good set of runs at FM (either off pace days, or tons of cones). Obviously, that's on me as a driver, but not putting together a good day in all the times I've been out last year and this year usually leaves me frustrated after a long day to attend the event.
-
I voted that I would attend fewer events in Fort MacLeod.
I am on the same page as others, as Saturday I had to be up before 6am, drive down, get 3 runs in and turn around and come back, and if I left after that I would have been home at 4:30pm or so. I stayed to get a few more runs, because well it was Saturday, and if I left after we tore down I could have been home for 7pm. I stopped to eat, because it was late, so I did not get home before my daughter went to bed.
Back in 2015, when all we had was Westerner and Fort MacLeod, I thought nothing of it, because well there wasn't a choice. The YYC lot has been spoiling me since returning this year because I can get up around 7am, and be home for dinner with my family. I can tell you as my kids are growing I am starting to think about the time I don't get to spend with them, and I don't see them at all when I go to Fort MacLeod.
Don't get me wrong, I like the venue at Fort MacLeod for it's differences from the YYC lot, but I will likely only attend 2 events per year there, and if the requirement is taken away. It may happen that I even reconsider that, depending on what is going on at home.
We all have to get up early, that come from out of Town, I would support starting earlier than we do right now if it meant we got a few more runs and got done earlier potentially. Run a tight clock on those events. The other thing that was discussed is practice days, I am more likely to attend a weekend with a practice built into it on Saturday, but I would strongly suggest that those make the most sense early on in the season before other major events, and while the excitement is still there at the start of the season.
Next year, I would like to go to Packwood, Nationals, and events like Top Gun in Montana, maybe Spring Nationals in Lincoln also. With those kinds of trips I want to be strategic in my time away, and my family may join me for a few of those kinds of trips.
-
Several complaints are about the venue (commute, weather, whatever), we can't do anything about that but I think we could improve upon running the events more efficiently (any time a car isn't on course is time spent on stuff we're not specifically here for). Just throwing out some ideas of varying feasibility:
I think this starts with getting the course set up completed earlier as there's a lot of people standing around waiting for course walk. I'm not sure what the limiting factor is here, maybe more volunteers on setup?
Make sure the first car leaves the start right at 10:00, I think we started around 10:20 which doesn't seem like much but 20 minutes is a lot of runs.
Switchover time is generally long due to the distance from the turnaround. Everybody would have to work together on this to cut it down (i.e. use 4 seater cars to shuttle and pick up people on the way in). Make sure cars are ready to go too, so you can get to your car hop in and move to grid.
Course design: Could we do something to make more course near where the pits are to lengthen the time on course with two cars running? Ideally, you would want the sweeper to be the midpoint of the course. Moving the pits to the end of the runway might gain some real estate to make this work, but the cable is still there. I'm not very familiar with what goes into course design, it may be too tight to throw another element or a figure 8 in there.
Is there a way to improve on lunch break? If everybody packed a lunch it could be shortened, but does that appeal to everybody or would they rather the break?
Just throwing out some ideas we can build off of.
For my $0.02 on whether or not I would attend more or less events, I would probably attend the same but feel I get better value out of YYC both in dollars and hours when for $10 more on a much shorter day (commuting from Calgary) I can get up to 10 runs vs 5 we got this weekend.
As an aside, attitude goes a long way here too; keep in mind that you're there to have fun and hang out with some people with similar interests, enjoy the time there and remember that the end goal isn't just to rush home at the end of the day.
-
Out-of-the-box idea for maintaining Fort Macleod event counts -- have we talked with the LSCC about co-sanctioning more events? If we bring funding and equipment, and they bring some attendees who might not otherwise attend, perhaps we could maintain the same number of events and similar levels of participation without making the events mandatory for the SASC championship.
Definitely something that we can discuss with them and gauge appetite.
-
If part of the issue with FM is ensuring the facility is rented often enough by the club to keep the city happy. I would be more than willing to organize a test and tune, practice day (or two) next year for club members. With my B-Mod whenever I make any changes I have to go to a solo race to find out if the change was positive, at a solo race there are very limited changes I can make to the car (time constrained), if I made a change at home and it was negative the whole solo race day accomplishes very little for me. Last Friday was worth more than 6 solo race days in setting up my car, not to mention the driving practice. Plus being able to scrub in a set of A-92 Avon’s. I looked into renting Castrol and Wetaskiwin and they would be more than three times the price of FM, for only a couple of hours, on my budget there’s no way.
With a small number of test and tuners say 6-12, the only the question would be how much profit would the club want? The club’s timing equip, and pylons would be used so the club deserves something.
Lastly, last Saturday was brutally hot and standing out there watching cones for a couple of hours was not pleasant, fortunately I was watching car’s racing so it was enjoyable in its own way. I’m curious if it would be allowable at a 2 or man station, for the person manning the radio to be a little bit further back and be allowed to sit in a lawn chair, the station members could take turns. My feet were really hurting by the end, mind you I am getting up there in age. I don’t think this would work at YYC as you are pretty close to the action and there’s no place to back away to, unlike FM. Not a big deal, just a curious thought.
#forthegloryofFMod
-
I am curious why you have not enjoyed ANY of the FM events. I have not heard that kind of comment before. You can PM me if you like if you don't want to discuss here. I'm curious to know why.
The risk reward element of the long drives down for potential few runs, marginal weather (both wind and rain) seem worse at FM than at YYC.
I personally feel YYC is a safer venue, as we usually have ample run off room compared to FM where going off the tarmac can lead to more car damage (I've taken both my cars off the pavement at FM now).
Highway driving, while usually okay, also poses potential consequences (took a chunk of asphalt to my hood this season on the way down to FM).
Bring out the tissues for this one, but, I also feel like I've never had a good set of runs at FM (either off pace days, or tons of cones). Obviously, that's on me as a driver, but not putting together a good day in all the times I've been out last year and this year usually leaves me frustrated after a long day to attend the event.
Boy, that sounds like a whole lot of bad luck!
In all the years I drove between Calgary and Lethbridge (lived down there for over 5 years), I once hit a couple of partridge with my car ... broke the metal grill in my '70 Chev on my way back from skiing at Lake Louise and one of them lodged inside the grill ... only incident.
As for rain? Typically they get almost 30% less rain than Calgary and when it rains it does not last long typically. So perhaps more bad luck/timing?
However, it is certainly windier down there especially during chinooks due to the Crowsnest corridor which acts like a big tunnel.
Reijo
-
At this point in time, 9 events into the 14 event Championship, I feel it's inappropriate for the SASC to even consider a change to this season's attendance requirements. That's a decision to be made pre-season, or at this year's AGM for next season.
My personal opinion is that it's too the club's detriment to marginalize attendance at Fort Macleod and risk losing it. A venue lost historically is never recovered.
Also my opinion that this year's Fort Macleod events have been below SASC standards. We can't do anything about the weather, but organizationally we must improve.
- First car out 10:00 sharp, means drivers meeting 9:30 sharp
- 40-50 sec course designs only
This weekend...
- First car out 10:26
- +80 sec course average
- ~4 hrs to complete 3 runs each
If...
- First car out @ 10:00
- ~40 sec course
- 3 morning runs completed @ ~12:00
- ~60 min lunch break
- 3 afternoon runs completed @ ~3:00
- Course cleanup, on the road by ~4:00
- Home by ~6:00
It's not rocket science!!
-
At this point in time, 9 events into the 14 event Championship, I feel it's inappropriate for the SASC to even consider a change to this season's attendance requirements. That's a decision to be made pre-season, or at this year's AGM for next season.
My personal opinion is that it's too the club's detriment to marginalize attendance at Fort Macleod and risk losing it. A venue lost historically is never recovered.
Also my opinion that this year's Fort Macleod events have been below SASC standards. We can't do anything about the weather, but organizationally we must improve.
- First car out 10:00 sharp, means drivers meeting 9:30 sharp
- 40-50 sec course designs only
This weekend...
- First car out 10:26
- +80 sec course average
- ~4 hrs to complete 3 runs each
If...
- First car out @ 10:00
- ~40 sec course
- 3 morning runs completed @ ~12:00
- ~60 min lunch break
- 3 afternoon runs completed @ ~3:00
- Course cleanup, on the road by ~4:00
- Home by ~6:00
It's not rocket science!!
Maybe save the longer courses for practice events and put a cap on the number of entries allowed for said longer courses.
-
At this point in time, 9 events into the 14 event Championship, I feel it's inappropriate for the SASC to even consider a change to this season's attendance requirements. That's a decision to be made pre-season, or at this year's AGM for next season.
My personal opinion is that it's too the club's detriment to marginalize attendance at Fort Macleod and risk losing it. A venue lost historically is never recovered.
Also my opinion that this year's Fort Macleod events have been below SASC standards. We can't do anything about the weather, but organizationally we must improve.
- First car out 10:00 sharp, means drivers meeting 9:30 sharp
- 40-50 sec course designs only
This weekend...
- First car out 10:26
- +80 sec course average
- ~4 hrs to complete 3 runs each
If...
- First car out @ 10:00
- ~40 sec course
- 3 morning runs completed @ ~12:00
- ~60 min lunch break
- 3 afternoon runs completed @ ~3:00
- Course cleanup, on the road by ~4:00
- Home by ~6:00
It's not rocket science!!
I don't think anyone was suggesting changing anything this year.
Not all the FM events were late like this one and the last one. I remember distinctly starting on-time or earlier before. In any case, I agree, we can do better.
Something else that delayed the start were the people still walking the course such that I did not want to start the driver's meeting until most of them were back (there were still a few walking when I started).
Perhaps if we announce before the start of the day (or during registration - have a sheet with a schedule posted?) or something or other such that people will know to head to the pits for the driver's meeting.
A typical SCCA course is 60 seconds long so it would be nice to run something of that length every now and then.
Something else: If we get, say, 45 or more drivers, then we should run 3 heats which would eliminate the lunch and move us forward an hour.
Someone else also mentioned that people working in the far end should be driving down there to save time on the turn-over.....or car-pooling etc.
And all the other suggestions to consider as well....
So, yes, another case of changing the way we do things due to increased attendance.
R
-
Out-of-the-box idea for maintaining Fort Macleod event counts -- have we talked with the LSCC about co-sanctioning more events? If we bring funding and equipment, and they bring some attendees who might not otherwise attend, perhaps we could maintain the same number of events and similar levels of participation without making the events mandatory for the SASC championship.
Sorry for being late to the party. LSCC would appreciate the dialog...our max attendance this year at FM is 15...lowest was 7. We have all the equipment, insurance and cones we need...I can't promise attendees as you can see. As this is the Southern Alberta Solosport Club, I like the idea of keeping the venue. I haven't been able to make any SASC events this year and LSCC is struggling. If SASC pulled out, I'm not sure we'd take both days on a weekend given our poor attendance (we'd be broke in less than a year). We were also not able to book an August event - this reduces our numbers as we will go almost 2 months between events. So Wayne is right...use it or loose it.
-
Out-of-the-box idea for maintaining Fort Macleod event counts -- have we talked with the LSCC about co-sanctioning more events? If we bring funding and equipment, and they bring some attendees who might not otherwise attend, perhaps we could maintain the same number of events and similar levels of participation without making the events mandatory for the SASC championship.
Sorry for being late to the party. LSCC would appreciate the dialog...our max attendance this year at FM is 15...lowest was 7. We have all the equipment, insurance and cones we need...I can't promise attendees as you can see. As this is the Southern Alberta Solosport Club, I like the idea of keeping the venue. I haven't been able to make any SASC events this year and LSCC is struggling. If SASC pulled out, I'm not sure we'd take both days on a weekend given our poor attendance (we'd be broke in less than a year). We were also not able to book an August event - this reduces our numbers as we will go almost 2 months between events. So Wayne is right...use it or loose it.
Hmmm.....yes the interest seems to have waned in Lethbridge over the last few years ... not sure why? Mind you there were a few more Lethbridge and Fort Macleod area people in the last couple of our events ... So maybe the bottom has been hit and there will be rebound? I hope so. More marketing needed maybe?
R
-
An alternate way to interpret increased attendance from Southern Alberta residents at SASC events is that SASC is cannibalizing LSCC's participation.
-
An alternate way to interpret increased attendance from Southern Alberta residents at SASC events is that SASC is cannibalizing LSCC's participation.
True, there are a few people from Lethbridge and area who do come to our events (even the Calgary ones!) but that has really been a phenomena that seemed to start just this year with a few exceptions from the past years. Also, I would estimate we are talking about less than a half dozen people - not too many. Back in the early '80's the LSCC had a regular membership of between 45-50 people and I don't think that has been matched yet (population was about 65,000 at that time if I recall correctly - 3rd largest city in Alberta at that time - Red Deer and Ft. McMurray have grown to be bigger now. Lethbridge is around 85,000 now).
However, I think this (limited) migration to our club, may be because of a few different reasons - the YYC lot (a great venue always draws people), less LSCC events over the last couple of years resulting in an unmet demand, and perhaps some other reasons (maybe someone from down there can jump in here and let us know what they are thinking?).
However, generally, it appears to me that the Lethbridge folks simply stopped attending autoxes from what I can tell. I have not really been able to figure that out ...
Some key people have left for various reasons and this may be a hint. This means someone has to come in and take over the reins and "make it happen". Craig has done this with some help from a few others but Craig is also out of town due to his work which makes it difficult.
Notably the "elephant in the room" is the loss of the Exhibition Grounds in Lethbridge as a venue. Obviously this was very convenient in that no one had to drive out of town. Even driving a short distance (1/2 hour/50 km) out of town can make a difference is something I have seen ... perhaps after becoming accustomed to not driving outside the city.
Personally I am a bit mystified why more people from Lethbridge do not come out to their and our events at FM. I know I would be there but that is me.
-
An alternate way to interpret increased attendance from Southern Alberta residents at SASC events is that SASC is cannibalizing LSCC's participation.
True, there are a few people from Lethbridge and area who do come to our events (even the Calgary ones!) but that has really been a phenomena that seemed to start just this year with a few exceptions from the past years. Also, I would estimate we are talking about less than a half dozen people - not too many. Back in the early '80's the LSCC had a regular membership of between 45-50 people and I don't think that has been matched yet (population was about 65,000 at that time if I recall correctly - 3rd largest city in Alberta at that time - Red Deer and Ft. McMurray have grown to be bigger now. Lethbridge is around 85,000 now).
However, I think this (limited) migration to our club, may be because of a few different reasons - the YYC lot (a great venue always draws people), less LSCC events over the last couple of years resulting in an unmet demand, and perhaps some other reasons (maybe someone from down there can jump in here and let us know what they are thinking?).
However, generally, it appears to me that the Lethbridge folks simply stopped attending autoxes from what I can tell. I have not really been able to figure that out ...
Some key people have left for various reasons and this may be a hint. This means someone has to come in and take over the reins and "make it happen". Craig has done this with some help from a few others but Craig is also out of town due to his work which makes it difficult.
Notably the "elephant in the room" is the loss of the Exhibition Grounds in Lethbridge as a venue. Obviously this was very convenient in that no one had to drive out of town. Even driving a short distance (1/2 hour/50 km) out of town can make a difference is something I have seen ... perhaps after becoming accustomed to not driving outside the city.
Personally I am a bit mystified why more people from Lethbridge do not come out to their and our events at FM. I know I would be there but that is me.
I should probably start a separate "How to promote this sport" thread instead of cluttering this one up further...but here's my take on the Fort Mc venue. LSCC lost the Exhibition venue and I'll be working this year to get it back (where's my horse? I see a windmill over the hill...charge!). The city is now 100,000 residents and apparently 10 of us enjoy autocross. We get very good attendance at the annual Street Machine Weekend event (around 70 people) but it's not an LSCC event - we did advertise with flyers on the windshields of all competitors cars listing our next events. As it's run by the Street Wheelers Car Club, it's not like they're going to be on the PA all day telling everyone to come out to another club's events. It's a struggle. We have the shortest distance to get to Fort Macleod but what I've heard is that this is considered too far for the newbies. Basically, if you put it in the local area (like the YYC lot), then people will come and try, some will get hooked, some will never come again or only attend when they have the time ( :'( this year has been terrible for my participation...and it shows in my driving I'm affraid). "Last minute Lethbridge" is how we all joke about this place - we're not making it up.
We fired things back up after a few dormant years when SASC decided to stop hosting the 2 day event weekend. We picked up the other day - I saw this as our opportunity. This worked better last year when it was a consistent thing with SASC out on Sunday and LSCC out on Saturday. We only lost money on 2 events. This year we're in the hole - I can't say how much, but things like our membership drive has yielded 3-4 members - there are probably more Lethbridge people with memberships in SASC than LSCC (I've got one for both). YYC lot is a great venue and many of the Lethbridge people prefer to race there.
To be fair, I was told that this would happen by other LSCC members, but with a lot of support from SASC we've at least got a foothold. I see LSCC presence (regardless of loss) as important for SASC - if we keep the pressure on Fort Macleod, when the YYC lot gets re-developed, there is an option. I'll go start that other thread now.
-
Yvonne and I would still attend all the Fort Macleod events we could. Two day events work better for us because of the distance from our home in Canmore plus the hotels are awesome ;) Both of us like the variety of courses, lengths, and surface as well as meeting other drivers.
We haven’t hit anything on the road yet but we did slalom the cattle on Hwy 40 coming home last weekend :)
-
I feel the below is relevant to the original post Steve made. Just shows the importance of keeping relations with every venue we have. We wont have YYC forever
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/airport-trail-expansion-1.4753464 (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/airport-trail-expansion-1.4753464)
-
To be clear, I wasn't advocating for abandoning Fort Macleod -- I was asking how people would react if racing there was no longer mandatory for the season championship.
Anyway, I think the loss of the YYC lot merits its own thread.